CCP puts Trotsky in his rightful place

[Q]

As posted on Leftist Trainspotters:


An article in the "News of the Chinese Communist Party" states the following about Leon Trotsky. He was the leader with Lenin of the Russian revolution, organiser of the insurrection, founder of the Red Army and was murdered by Stalin in Mexico.

Other articles, for example in the mass readership Bejing Daily have gone further. (eg. recognising the relevance of his proposals in the struggle against Hitler)

I think the fact that the Communist Party published this last month in their official journal is of enormous symptomatic significance for an open dialogue within the Communist Party about Marxism and its historical traditions.

Read this article (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://dangshi.people.com.cn/GB/85039/12270429.html&sl=zh-CN&tl=en).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Which tendency in the CCP is promoting this? I'm sure the IMT will rush to "enter" the CCP now. ;)

[turquino]

Perhaps it's a clue to Chinese revisionism.

[Q]

Which tendency in the CCP is promoting this? I'm sure the IMT will rush to "enter" the CCP now. ;)
I don't know. To me this is news, but others in the 'Spotters list are saying it is old:

those of us who follow the PRC closely know this is extremely old
news. In fact has been documente din this list before. There is an official
academic raproachment with Trotskyism, as long as it is not a political
form.

In fact there is an institute enterily devoted to the study of Chinese
Trotskyism in the U of B.

Trying to crystal ball politics from these declarations is futile, as there
was never a wholesale denialism of Trotskyists in the CPC, only a claim that
they were wrong, and sometimes anti-Party unity, rarely
counter-Revolutionary, and even less so-anti-People (a distinction that
didnt exist in Soviet Russia).
So, I don't know. If it is correct that it is merely an academic approach though, most members are probably not even aware of these positions or even a person called Trotsky. I don't know where this comes from though.


Perhaps it's a clue to Chinese revisionism.
Or perhaps you're just a troll.

[Adi Shankara]

As much as I admire Trotsky, the Chinese Communist Party really has no room to comment on anything related to communism and proper theory, seeing as they're one of the world's most bourgeois capitalist parties in existence today.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So what?:rolleyes:

[vyborg]

Which tendency in the CCP is promoting this? I'm sure the IMT will rush to "enter" the CCP now. ;)

no thanx, we let u go first

[Zeus the Moose]

Which tendency in the CCP is promoting this? I'm sure the IMT will rush to "enter" the CCP now. ;)

Nah, it's going to be the IMT split around Heiko Khoo :D

[The Author]

The Chinese government has been publishing Trotsky's works since 1984. This is not news.

I'd be more interested if the Chinese government seriously took steps in the present to purge its bureaucracy, eliminate its capitalists and all of the American, Japanese and European companies exploiting its workforce immensely and bring free healthcare, education, housing and start guaranteeing workers' control through councils, power of the trade unions, and ideological upbringing of the working class by the working class. I could care less about how they view the historical role of a meaningless emigre writer who keeled over in Mexico in 1940.

[Prairie Fire]

A bourgeois party full of billionaire owners of private industry and capital praises a man who made a living for himself as a soviet dissident with serialized articles in the capitalist press.

Champagne, anyone?

EDIT: Removed spelling mistake.

[Adi Shankara]

A bourgeois party full of billionaire owners of private industry and capital praises a man who made a living for himself as a soviet dissident with serialized articles in the capitalist press.

Champaign, anyone?

oh shut up. you trivialize the hell out of Trotsky in an attempt to insult him, that, and you can't even spell Champagne.

[Prairie Fire]

So, aside from the spelling mistake, what else was incorrect about what I posted there, Thomas?

As usual, you are right on me for my spelling and grammar, but that is a cheap tactic to dodge my point.

[Adi Shankara]

So, aside from the spelling mistake, what else was incorrect about what I posted there, Thomas?

As usual, you are right on me for my spelling and grammar, but that is a cheap tactic to dodge my point.

He didn't write against the Soviet Union to "make a living"; He gave his fucking life in the struggle against Stalinism, and was exiled from his homeland forever, disgraced, because of his opinions and words of courage when everyone else was afraid to speak up.

he paid the ultimate price to speak against tyranny, assassinated by Stalin's henchmen. how fucking dare you trivialize it as "making a living". You're a worm compared to Trotsky, and the amount of effort he put into the struggle to achieve human equality through communism.

[Roach]

He gave his fucking life in the struggle against Stalinism...he paid the ultimate price to speak against tyranny, assassinated by Stalin's henchmen.

So... why do you have ''party for marxist unity'' as your tendency?

[Rusty Shackleford]

So... why do you have ''party for marxist unity'' as your tendency?
POUM was trot.

[Black Sheep]

I thought this thread was going to be about trotsky cookies.:D

[Adi Shankara]

So... why do you have ''party for marxist unity'' as your tendency?

Because Stalin wasn't a Marxist, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would consider him (along with Pol Pot) a "Marxist".

[Lolshevik]

Because Stalin wasn't a Marxist, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would consider him (along with Pol Pot) a "Marxist".


I wish this were true buddy, but Maoists, Hoxhaists, and general "anti-revisionists" do uphold Stalin as a Marxist.

[Roach]

Because Stalin wasn't a Marxist, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would consider him (along with Pol Pot) a "Marxist".

My post may go off topic so if its necessary it can be move to another thread.

It was a rhteorical question.My intention was to take away this veil of Anti-sectarian and sentimental politics.While also, exposing your liberalism even further.

The truth is that Anti-stalinism, even if able to take power, would have to contradict itself.On the moment that the reactionaries are able to launch a counter revolution, all Anti-Stalinist principles would be thrown out to the trashcan of history or ortherwise the movement itself will be found there.
Why?
Because a revolution is not about humanism,it is not about politely asking the bourgeoisie to retreat,it is an repressive act against the reactionary forces of history.Yes,Socialism is an democratic system, but why should it freely give all it's benefits to those who swear to destroy it?

It's foolish to say that Stalin wasn't a marxist, just because of some moralistic opinions about rights and repression ,that somehow play on the bourgeoisie side.On the field of marxist theory Stalin may not be a 100% impeccable but his errors are not enough to complete exempt him from the ''title'' of marxist.The accusations of genocide can be disproven,the repression can be justified.If mistakes happened?

Yes, many of them.Homossexuality,abortion,the purges,the role of the party on society, cult of personality, a number of economic issues.All this subjects and many more are either complete errors or still on debate by modern ''stalinists''.

But the question is not if Stalin was a marxist, it is if the Anti-Stalinist or libertarian (whatever) left (but not anarchist) is capable of reaching it's objective of classless ,stateless society without anytime beign as repressive as Stalinism?
The aswer is no.


And to Lolshevik...
Isn't it the world full of crazy stuff?;)

[Saorsa]

POUM was trot.

Nah they weren't. I'm pretty sure they were a merger of Trots and pro-Bukharin elements, but they definitely weren't part of the Fourth International and Trotsky critiqued them quite heavily.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

The truth is that Anti-stalinism, even if able to take power, would have to contradict itself.On the moment that the reactionaries are able to launch a counter revolution, all Anti-Stalinist principles would be thrown out to the trashcan of history or ortherwise the movement itself will be found there.

Why?

Because a revolution is not about humanism,it is not about politely asking the bourgeoisie to retreat,it is an repressive act against the reactionary forces of history.Yes,Socialism is an democratic system, but why should it freely give all it's benefits to those who swear to destroy it?

I like your logic. I've always felt that such revolutionary leaders and Old Bolshevik figures as Trotsky, Preobrazhensky, Tomsky, Rykov, Yakovleva, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Béla Kun, and countless other such people were clearly part of the menacing counterrevolution.

I also have a vague suspicion that the entire Soviet Korean community may have been in on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Koreans_in_the_Soviet_Union).


But the question is not if Stalin was a marxist, it is if the Anti-Stalinist or libertarian (whatever) left (but not anarchist) is capable of reaching it's objective of classless ,stateless society without anytime beign as repressive as Stalinism?

The aswer is no.

Yes, comrade. The revolution is not a peaceful act -- for Christ's sake! It's not writing an essay, making a picture, or doing embroidery!

The great proletarian revolution will even suppress the old revolutionaries (all enemies will be purged). And it will target the minorities for forcible resettlement. Because that's what was taught to us by Joseph Stalin, the great revolutionary visionary and leader of progressive humanity.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Stalin doesn't have to be a 'good' force to be a Marxist.

Clearly, his cult of personality, the many, many people who died under his rule and his various other indiscretions have completely tarnished his reputation, but that is not to say that we should be the arbiters who have some moralistic right to repudiate his Marxism.

[Blackscare]

Sankara is basically right when he says Trotsky didn't simply write as a dissident to make money. You'd have to take full flight from reality to believe that. Yes, that is how he made his living, but consider his position.


He was a high-level Bolshevik firmly involved with the revolution in Russia, who not only lost a power struggle, which is something that happens from time to time in a DC style party, but was, totally defying the general practice of DC, then EXPELLED and had his Left Opposition forbidden. He was denied a platform and totally shunned, demonized and slandered by the same political apparatus he was only recently a part of.


What would you have done? Quietly lied down? Obviously he felt he had contributions to make and input to give, and since the USSR wasn't going to allow him to do it as Leninists supposedly do, via internal debate, he published it. He was an important man, even in exile, it makes perfect sense that he would choose as his method of employment writing, as this allowed him to fulfill a role he deemed important.



People who whine about Trotsky publishing criticism are beyond infantile. Even if you disagree with the man, if you pretend that you can't possibly understand his motives or the fact that the CP of the USSR created the problem itself, you're out of your fucking mind.


Trotsky didn't want to be stuck in Mexico writing essays, but it was the only real outlet he had. Serves the fuckers right for trying to silence him internally, he just brought the debate out in the open.